The question is not: Is she crazy?
The question is: Should she be charged for doing something that is lawful?
What does the LAW say? or should we care?
1st, we take risks every day. Do we live our lives in fear or do we take reasonable risks? Whether or not you feel this is too great a risk is irrelevant. It is what she feels is a reasonable risk. At interstate speeds, it is unlikely that the child would have survived an accident even if the child were in a restraint.
2nd, do we govern our conduct based upon public opinion, or do we base our conduct on the written law?
Here is the Michigan law:
http://michiganlegislature.org/law/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=mcl-257-710d&userid= 257.710d Child restraint system required; exceptions; violation as civil infraction; points; abstract; exemption by rules; alternate means of protection.
(1) Except as provided in this section, or as otherwise provided by law, a rule promulgated pursuant to the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328, or federal regulation, each driver transporting a child less than 4 years of age in a motor vehicle shall properly secure that child in a child restraint system that meets the standards prescribed in 49 C.F.R. 571.213.
(2) This section does not apply to any child being nursed.
Pretty unequivocable isn't it?
If you are the driver and I am in your car and the child is not in restraint, who gets the ticket? The driver.
If she is the only adult in the car and she is nursing, she is exempt. The statute above does not say '... by a passenger'
But she's in Ohio, so she should follow Ohio law!!!
Here is the Ohio law:
http://onlinedocs.andersonpublishing.com/oh/lpExt.dll/PORC/16f81/17778/179c2?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0 Subsection (F) says that the troopers must look to the law of the state where she maintains a residence:
(F) If a person who is not a resident of this state is charged with a violation of division (A) or (B) of this section and does not prove to the court, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the person's use or nonuse of a child restraint system was in accordance with the law of the state of which the person is a resident, the court shall impose the fine levied by division (H)(2) of section 4511.99 of the Revised Code.
Now, I see from some people here that this is supposed to be negligence. Most all of the states have a statute akin to this one:
Subsection (D) The failure of an operator of a motor vehicle to secure a child in a child restraint system as required by this section is not negligence imputable to the child, is not admissible as evidence in any civil action involving the rights of the child against any other person allegedly liable for injuries to the child, is not to be used as a basis for a criminal prosecution of the operator of the motor vehicle other than a prosecution for a violation of this section, and is not admissible as evidence in any criminal action involving the operator of the motor vehicle other than a prosecution for a violation of this section.
Charging her for negligence is therefore improper.
The fact of the matter is that the troopers have a duty to know the law. They failed in that duty and stopped her for something for which she could not be found guilty.
Then they impounder her car and put her in jail.
Then they added two new unfounded charges a month later when she would not cop a plea.
Finally, I know that this woman has been assaulted twice by the police. I know that she has been raped at gunpoint while she attended the US Naval Academy. She does not pull over until she gets to a safe place with witnesses.
Your failure to be informed of the facts and law in this situation does not make her a wacko.
Child safety seats aside, breastfeeding while driving is child endangerment.
Finally, I know that this woman has been assaulted twice by the police. I know that she has been raped at gunpoint while she attended the US Naval Academy. She does not pull over until she gets to a safe place with witnesses. Your failure to be informed of the facts and law in this situation does not make her a wacko.
The police officer pulling her over does not know this; no one else knows this, Barrister. All they know is that a lady is distracted from driving by attempting to latch a child to her chest as opposed to either pulling over to tend to business or to give the child a bottle of milk which the mother has taken the time to prepare prior to her trip.
All the cop knows is that this woman has endangered OTHER people by her erratic driving.
Finally, my "failure to be informed" certainly does not make her a wacko. But her decision to endanger others (fine, I WON'T include her child since you're hiding behind your interpretation of a poorly worded law) in other vehicles traveling at high speed on the Turnpike.
I don't have any sympathy for her. Based on the evidence, she deserves to be convicted for her poor decision.
As for her child; I'd submit that any trial evidence be presented to the appropriate child welfare authorities.